Jump to content

Global Warming and Hurricanes


Viper

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I am reminded that you have said that you were not going to post in the Coffee House anymore because you can't control yourself, yet here you are again with a thinly veiled attack on those who would criticize the president for his stupid plans like going to moon & mars to mine helium3. You say you recognize Bush's faults, but the only thing that I have seen you do here is fault everyone else holding the elected President to his responsibilities.

BTW, Clinton has not been in the white house for 5 years. Even most conservatives have gotten beyond attempting to blame Bush's failures on Clinton by now and instead are diving for cover. Maybe you ought to take a clue. rolleyes.gif

I highly reccommend that you take your own advice and stay out of the coffee house if you just can't resist the urge to attack others on this forum. No matter how well worded.

metro: I believe I said I would not post in the Coffee House because it is an inherent conflict of interest for someone who has the power to ban people (you) also be a regular debater and regularly delete posts, threaten people with banishment and ban people. And, I can control myself quite well. Can you? You are constantly sarcastic and rude to others but no one can stop you because of your ability to censor and ban. And, I have not personally attacked anyone (unless you consider this a personal attack). I have used logic and facts to defeat you time and time again and this is probably the source of your anger towards me. But, thank you for reminding me though why it is not worth posting in the Coffee House.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

metro: I believe I said I would not post in the Coffee House because it is an inherent conflict of interest for someone who has the power to ban people (you) also be a regular debater and regularly delete posts, threaten people with banishment and ban people. And, I can control myself quite well. Can you? You are constantly sarcastic and rude to others but no one can stop you because of your ability to censor and ban. And, I have not personally attacked anyone (unless you consider this a personal attack). I have used logic and facts to defeat you time and time again and this is probably the source of your anger towards me. But, thank you for reminding me though why it is not worth posting in the Coffee House.

Logic adn facts? I would call them statements that could be reduced to : Liberals are the cause of all evil, God is an american and, I support the war, I dont have to fight it.

Sorry again, just had to reply to that....

:ph34r::yahoo:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like how well this stayed on topic! By the way, I don't believe in sarcasm. Ever.

Let me just re-construct the two "extreme" arguments about global warming, and I'll let you decide for yourself.

Person A: Global warming is a global phenomena of rising average temperatures and altered atmospheric conditions compared to the past that are highly believed to be caused by an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, a greenhouse gas. The process works very simply: Like putting a cover on pot of boiling water. The air temperature inside heats up becuase the source of heat has not changed, but the amount of radiation has. This theory is supported by scientists, academics, most Americans, and pretty much the rest of the world outside of the Middle East.

Person B: Global warming is a farce. They've fudged the numbers. It's not actually getting warmer. The hurricanes are getting stronger because God is punishing the U.S for turning away from Him. I'm glad that our President puts faith in God before believing evidence of countless scientists because that's what our country needs: They need faith in God. Everything will get better if we just pray and invade Iraq, Iran, and any other country that tries to mess with us. And boycott France, because they don't believe in God. At least not as much as us. Cuz we're bigger. Because God would invade Iraq. And by all means: May God continue to bless America.

This is kind of the views that I receive from each side of the debate. Person A is the extreme "liberal" perspective (or the one that makes sense) and person B is the cooky, unfortunately ever more popular view that dominates places like the impoverished south, the Amish, and the White House.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

metro: I believe I said I would not post in the Coffee House because it is an inherent conflict of interest for someone who has the power to ban people (you) also be a regular debater and regularly delete posts, threaten people with banishment and ban people. And, I can control myself quite well. Can you? You are constantly sarcastic and rude to others but no one can stop you because of your ability to censor and ban. And, I have not personally attacked anyone (unless you consider this a personal attack). I have used logic and facts to defeat you time and time again and this is probably the source of your anger towards me. But, thank you for reminding me though why it is not worth posting in the Coffee House.

I have not censored, banned or deleted any posts in this thread so your response is unwarranted and you seem to be the only one here that can't hold a decent conversation with others that actually stick to the subject. Further you have produced a number of posts on this forum attacking numerous people for their views and have been suspended several times for it. Your response above calling everyone who disagrees with Bush on this forum, basicially stupid idiots and Clinton lovers is yet another childish example of this. And adding that everyone who was against the war is "chicken" really speaks to the high quality of your posts here. I actually don't care if you want to bash politicians, but you cross the line when you also bash the people who criticize these politicians.

If I were you I would stop and try to discover why you have such a hard time getting along with others on this site. But in case you don't, I will tell you this, if you think it is a conflict of interest for me to post in this forum, then I suggest that you don't come back here at all. I am not going away, but you are going to stop the attacks. It's your decision on how we proceed. It really can't be more simple than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as Global Warming goes, the Mean Temperature of the Earth has gone up 1.5 degrees since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. 1.0 degrees in the past 30 years. That may not sound like much, but the Mean Temperature is determined by the Highs and Lows around the entire globe. Even President Bush has finally admitted that Global Warming exists. This is something that the Scientific Comunity has know for years, contrary to what some posters on this Blog say. Yes, there is natural variance and periotic highs and lows of weather and hurricanes. There are several frightening aspects to this. Major changes in weather patterns leading to crop failures and an increase in natural disasters. Hurricanes are one of these. With the increase in the numbers of people who want to live in areas where they can be outdoors 12 months of the year, there are more people and homes that will be affected by these Hurricanes. The costs both in lives and loss of structures will go up. There is talk that Florida will have 30M+ by 2030. With this size of population, even a relatively minor hurricane will be extremely expensive. With the increases in the ocean temperatures, these hurricanes will be more frequent. The US will be taxed to try to provide the relief that the areas will require. I will say that New Orleans is a unique event and that we shouldn't have that kind of disaster again, but with rising ocean levels storm surge may make several of our coastal cities very vulnerable to storm surge. The Mississippi Gulf Coast is a good example of what we could have occur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, here's a question for you all. Can it be reversed?

Will limiting our greenhouse gases (something we should do anyway) revert this temp increase back to normal and how long will that take?

Viper, I think that it could be reversed. The question arrises on getting developing countries to decrease polution and having the developed countries cut back as well. That is a hard sale. China, as I'm sure you know is a major polluter. They have become one of the major users of all types of items as they try to move into the position of a first world super power. Eventually some of these gases, etc will be trapped again in ice, merged with other chemicals in new molecules of something or absorbed into the water. The planet has and has always had an ability to heal itself. Can't say how long it would take or if it would ever fully recover, but as you mentioned this is something that we should do anyway. We have to remember that we are caretakers. We really do not own the world no matter what we might think. I have to be optimistic and think that we small being can make it go up 1 degree in 30-35 years that if we cut back substanially that the Earth could drop back the 1 degree in the same time. There again it probibly gets harder and we might need that 300 years to go back that next half a degree. I'm not one who claims to be fully educated in this area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need a Kyoto Protocol that applies to all nations. China nd India, the biggest polluters on Earth right now, were to be completely exempt from the KP.

I'm sure they all agree that we are polluting the planet and I think the sell should be on that point alone. That's irrefutable. When you bring in issues that aren't as concrete, that's when nations start to disagree.

KP applied to all based on pollution facts alone and not theories and we might have a better chance of seeing it happen. Trade negotiations with other nations that will push for alternative fuels is another big help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well,

look at it this way: The earth may put a bandaid on all the CO2 we injected into the atmosphere, but it took millions of years for the oil that we've burned in less than 100 to form. It will take much longer than we can imagine for the earth to heal itself to pre-human gluttony levels.

As it stands right now, 2005 will be, again, the warmest year on record. It will likely surpass 1998, and this time with no super El-Nino to push global temps up. This time there is no natural explanation that we know of to explain the record temps.

This is why it frustrates me so much when people will do anything, say anything to bash global warming.

First, it wasn't happening. Then it was happening, but it was due to natural causes. This argument is pretty easy to tear apart though, because the evidence for anthropocentric global warming is very strong and greatly outweighs the skeptics' evidence. Now, many "skeptics" acknowledge that not only is global warming happening, but at least part of it is because of us. But they're simply in denial. Now, they argue, it's too late and there's ntohing we can do about it so we might as well just keep driving our hummers and be pigs cuz there just ain't nuttin' dat we dun can do 'bout it, huh Cletus!? *hock* *spit* PING!!!!

Ugh, sorry. That was innapropriate, but that doesn't stop it from frustrating me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need a Kyoto Protocol that applies to all nations. China nd India, the biggest polluters on Earth right now, were to be completely exempt from the KP.

I'm sure they all agree that we are polluting the planet and I think the sell should be on that point alone. That's irrefutable. When you bring in issues that aren't as concrete, that's when nations start to disagree.

KP applied to all based on pollution facts alone and not theories and we might have a better chance of seeing it happen. Trade negotiations with other nations that will push for alternative fuels is another big help.

Viper, I agree with you that the Kyoto Protocol is biased against developed countries and that it is very leniant towards developing nations. Yes, I know that China and India are among the largest polluters. Yes, it would make some items more expensive in the US, but it is a bad example when every country in the world signed onto an agreement to work towards lowering polution except the US. It's funny that when it comes to politicians in the US that there are some that are willing to take small steps that can be achieved and work towards expanding them and their are those who want all or nothing. Even in areas that we in the US could produce energy that would not pollute, we do not. There are rivers that could be damed and produce electric power and geothermal basins that could do the same, but the trade offs are that we would distroy something in the process. I believe that we havae to help the developing nations create the energy that they need in the least harmful way. Right now China is burning high sulfur coal with very few, if any scrubers on the furnances. Supplying the technology to clean that up is relatively inexpensive and easy to do. There is no reason that we could not negotiate under the human rights banner that we would restrict imports unless they added the needed technology. It could be a win for the Chinese people for better air quality, win for China, and a win for the world. There are ways to help to do some of this if people would just think of ways to tie them in. We could have pushed to make these kinds of additions to the Kyoto Protocol as a requirement to getting our signature. There is such a thing as diplomacy. The US has never been very good at it and we seem to be getting worse, but it does exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the latest news to come from the effects of global warming: The warmer atmosphere has been slowly raising ocean temperatures, threatening sea coral that can only live within a narrow temperature margin. A slight increase in sea surface temperature can induce coral bleaching, killing the coral. Recent data gathered by the University of Puerto Rico shows that up to 95 percent of coral colonies off the island have been bleached in some areas. There is concern that we may be witnessing a massive die-off of coral thoughout the Caribbean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I hope all coastal areas do something this winter/spring before the next hurricane season to maybe re-new evacuation roots and whatever else is needed to prevent such disaster again. I'm scared for Rhode Island.. we basically have no protection (that I know of) south of the Providence Hurricance barrier .. a barrier which probably wouldnt have been able to handle Katrina, had it struck us over here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.